17 June 2013 1:46 PM

A Rare Outbreak of Scepticism in Syrian Coverage - but was it justified?

A number of British media outlets were obviously shocked by Vladimir Putin’s sneer that it was unwise to arm Syrian rebels who ‘eat the organs’ of their enemies. Reporters used words such as ‘apparently’ and ‘allegedly’ to qualify the Russian President’s words. Nice to see some scepticism about war propaganda in Syria for once, as the atrocity tales of the rebels tend to have been believed without qualification, especially by the hopelessly partial BBC, as has the rather vague assertion that President Assad has used chemical weapons ‘against his own people’ (I ask again, is this better or worse than using them against other people’s people? Is there any major nation whose armed forces have never been used to put down uprisings or indeed drive people from their homes on its own territory. It’s hard to work out what else the US Army was doing in the last third of the 19th century).

Readers of this blog and my column will be familiar with this story, about a Syrian rebel leader biting into the heart of a dead soldier, which would have marched across every front page in ‘the West’, and led every TV bulletin for hours , had it been one of President Assad’s troops doing it to a rebel soldier. Yet it is an interesting reflection on the general bias towards intervention that these major news outlets were willing to be sceptical about it last night and this morning. For there really isn’t much doubt about it.

Well, the story appeared most fully in Time Magazine on 12th May, and the YouTube video, which I will leave you to find for yourself if you want, is pretty easily available.

I wrote in my column on June 2nd about

‘…a gentleman called Abu Sakkar, [who] recently publicly sank his teeth into the bleeding heart of a freshly-slain government soldier.’

Was I making it up, or taking the information too readily on trust? You be the judge.

‘The video starts out like so many of the dozens coming out of the war in Syria every day, with the camera hovering over the body of a dead Syrian soldier. But the next frame makes it clear why this video, smuggled out of the city of Homs and into Lebanon with a rebel fighter, and obtained by TIME in April, is particularly shocking. In the video a man who is believed to be a rebel commander named Khalid al-Hamad, who goes by the nom de guerre Abu Sakkar, bends over the government soldier, knife in hand. With his right hand he moves what appears to be the dead man’s heart onto a flat piece of wood or metal lying across the body. With his left hand he pulls what appears to be a lung across the open cavity in the man’s chest. According to two of Abu Sakkar’s fellow rebels, who said they were present at the scene, Abu Sakkar had cut the organs out of the man’s body. The man believed to be Abu Sakkar then works his knife through the flesh of the dead man’s torso before he stands to face the camera, holding an organ in each hand. “I swear we will eat from your hearts and livers, you dogs of Bashar,” he says, referring to supporters of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Off camera, a small crowd can be heard calling out “Allahu akbar” — God is great. Then the man raises one of the bloodied organs to his lips and starts to tear off a chunk with his teeth.’

The story adds:

‘Two TIME reporters first saw the video in April in the presence of several of Abu Sakkar’s fighters and supporters, including his brother. They all said the video was authentic. We later obtained a copy. Since then TIME has been trying to ensure that the footage is not digitally manipulated in any way — a faked film like this would be powerful propaganda for the regime, which portrays the rebels as terrorists — and, as yet, TIME has not been able to confirm its integrity.’

in which the same man exposes himself as a serious sectarian hate-merchant and boasts of other atrocities.

‘Al-Hamad, who is Sunni and harbors a sectarian hatred for Alawite Muslims, said he has another gruesome video of his killing a government soldier from the Alawite faith. (Syrian President Bashar Assad is Alawite; the conflict in Syria is increasingly sectarian.) “Hopefully we will slaughter all of them [Alawites]. I have another video clip that I will send to them. In the clip, I am sawing another shabiha [progovernment militiaman] with a saw. The saw we use to cut trees. I sawed him into small pieces and large ones.” Al-Hamad also explained that even though both sides of the conflict in Syria are using video clips of their own brutal actions to intimidate the other, he believes his clip would have particular impact on the regime’s troops. “They film as well, but after what I did hopefully they will never step into the area where Abu Sakkar is,” he said, using his nom de guerre and referring to the part of Syria he currently controls.’

Human Rights Watch are reported to have validated the original evisceration video here

So, I think we can be pretty sure it’s the real thing. Abu Sakkar is in the ‘Farouq Brigades’, who are not Salafists or part of the militia supposedly linked to ‘Al Qaeda’. They are classified as ‘moderate Islamists’. Therefore they are the sort of people to whom William Hague wants to send weapons.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I can certainly give you an idea about where they are not Mr Thomas - the modern Conservative Party (unless that is you define 'right-wing'as a fixation with homosexuals, cowardice in the face of Islam or gross incompetence/betrayal over economic and foreign policy )

UKIP appears to be getting close to a right-wing party, at least in the language it speaks, although I concede it's hard to know what is genuine and what is state-managed.

"Now lets just take a closer look at the astoundingly hypocritical Russian position for a moment that Peter seems to be supporting. At the G8 today Putin is saying we must not arm the rebels at all, yet Russia is not only honoring "old agreements" in arming Assad but Putin has now said "we cannot rule out new arms deals" and everyone is trying to accommodate the madman."

Excellent Steven Giles.
Not that I have ever hoped that the US would intervene in this civil war, but the hypocrisy displayed against the US (and other western powers) in favor or Russia is, as you say, astounding. I'm happy that at least one other contributor to this blog can recognize it.

"You see this is what happens when there is a weak leadership in the United States, we have Putin calling the shots."

Another good observation that it is really "Putin calling the shots" but maybe in this case letting him call the shots will avoid WW3. It hasn't avoided the current death toll of 80,000 dead, though.

Despite all the negative portrayals of him in the Western media, Putin appears to be the only sane and rational leader in the G8. And the only one with a bit of backbone, prepared to stand up to the Neo Con controlled Western governments and media.

Roy Robinson.
The Western media are starting to go quiet on Iraq news.80 people blown up in a market place hardly makes the headlines now.
How can Tony Blair even be taken seriously anymore,the man has given Iraq 10 years of misery,he is a corrupt liar who thinks more about personal gain than human life.I am sure if he were PM today he would be pressing for war with Iran and North Korea.For me,Blair has been the most dangerous leader Britain has ever had.I cannot think of anyone who has done more damage at home and abroad.

If you listen to Russian officials from the Duma they are saying things like "we must support the legitimate government of Syria" these people are still Soviet minded, they think a non democratic dictatorship is a "legitimate government". That sort of mindset is worse than the mindset of unelected politicians in Brussels. There is no way I can stand by such hypocrisy. Putin has sea port access in Syria he does not want to lose.

Now lets just take a closer look at the astoundingly hypocritical Russian position for a moment that Peter seems to be supporting. At the G8 today Putin is saying we must not arm the rebels at all, yet Russia is not only honoring "old agreements" in arming Assad but Putin has now said "we cannot rule out new arms deals" and everyone is trying to accommodate the madman.

You see this is what happens when there is a weak leadership in the United States, we have Putin calling the shots.

"... to oppose this foul betrayal, one must support genuine tendencies of the Right whenever ...

Give us a clue, William, where do we find such tendencies and how does one know they are genuine. Do they wear a badge?

E_K

"But most of the political agenda is set by the BBC..."

Well, I'll give you that most of the political reporting is done by the BBC, mainly I suspect, to the sheer range of their radio and television output. I must admit I listen to the radio for several hours each day, starting from some unearthly hour in the morning, and then take in some evening TV, mainly of a non-commercial nature.
The strange thing is, I nearly always seem to be aware of items that some contributors claim to have been ignored by the organisation. And, as I only buy a newspaper once a week, could it be that I'm receiving subliminal news output?
Now, that would be worrying...

Did anyone see the George Clooney film 'Syriana' 5 or so years back? Its a multi plot film about CIA interference in the middle east. Caution plot spoiler. 2 anti tank missiles are delivered as part of a sting operation but one goes astray. It is eventually built into a small fishing boat and driven by a child suicide jihadi into an oil tanker.

Chris Redmond hits the nail on the head here "Sometimes, when cornered, we may find all parties in a dispute abhorrent but are forced to decide which is the lesser evil."

Of course this is the real world, if Peter Hitchens was PM could he really back a unelected dictator? What would that say about his type of rule or thinking? Surely that is the manifestation of a Tzarist/Soviet mentality? Yes the West used to back dictators for stablility but unless we want the rest of the middle east to call us hypocrites, we cannot do that anymore (oil rich Gulf states aside). If any of us was PM could we stand on the side lines mouthing platitudes as hundreds of thousands are killed? In this global media age we know live in?

The problem is we have not been anywhere near interventionist enough. All my life I expected Syria to be the flash point for the next world war and here we are two years later still watching destruction unfold and sectarianism develop.

As for Putin, if you show him any weakness he will exploit it, that is what Obamas administration did with its promise of being more loving during a second term if you remember (in that conversation we were not supposed to hear). So this has emboldened the stubborn Putin to block the will of the international community in this regard. That is why their Kremlin funded propaganda channel (RT) is forever campaigning against a republican government.

William Hague, Cameron et al are sad figures in my view, craven liberals posing as conservative patriots, willing to sacrifice their own countrymen and their dignity for a few crumbs of gold dust from Obama / liberal America's table.

What a pathetic, contemptible lot they are. The people of this country and those who died in two world wars to preserve it deserve better

Again, to oppose this foul betrayal, one must support genuine tendencies of the Right whenever the opportunity arises.

A slight correction to a previous post on this thread (if it gets published). Please search "Former French Foreign Minister confirms preparations for Syrian war underway since 2010" - an article on the Voltaire Network.

Speaking of which, please may I draw your readers' attention to an article entitled "UK planned war on Syria before unrest began: French ex-foreign minister" which is on the PressTV website and reachable by a search. Basically, the article reports a statement by Roland Dumas, a Mitterrand era minister, which was made during a recent interview with French Parliamentary TV network, LCP.

This "revelation" that the UK Government planned an invasion of Syria by mercenaries in 2009 comes as no surprise to those who have been following the careers of the likes of Abdulhakim Belhadj, and have read Thierry Meyssen (search "The Battle of Damascus has begun"), and have seen the unguarded Western media reports of foreign fighters on the ground in Syria - or those about fighters being trained by British "mercenaries", and "liasing" with British MOD personnel.

Sometimes, when cornered, we may find all parties in a dispute abhorrent but are forced to decide which is the lesser evil.
With Syria we are not cornered, and it does not appear to be an uprising of the population as a whole to overthrow a leadership.
The majority of the population appear to be cowering in fear, caught up in a power struggle of warring factions, and if any one 'rebel' faction did gain power I'm sure other factions would still cause mayhem.
As an outside observer however I am conscious of how ignorant I probably am of the real situation in Syria, and of how the information coming out of Syria is rarely if ever objective.

There hasn't been any mention of what Italy, Holland, Norway, Brazil, India, Australia and on and on have to say about the situation in Syria. We hear and read about the on going spat between Russia on the one side and Britain and the USA, the other. The EU seems uninterested in issuing a statement, not much solidarity there. Isn't that what we pay Baroness Ashton for? How big does the crisis have to be before she shows her authority?

I know nothing of Sunni v Alawites and do not pretend to know the first thing about Syria. What I DO know is that this country should not give one single bullet, let alone guns to either side. After the lies we were told about Iraq and Afghanistan (which looks like we will be leaving with our tails between our legs and Afghanistan EXACTLY where it was before) let alone Libya who believes a single word this, or any other Government tells us about foreign 'expeditions'? - to take people's minds off the awfulness of Government policy at home.
The clincher is that Mr Daniel Alexander MP has said that the army has more horses than tanks and no one is making the least fuss about this amazing statement. If it is indeed true that the army has more horses than tanks then we simply cannot afford FINANCIALLY to get involved in Syria (for the next 10 years?)

Apparently 1000 people were killed last month in the Sunni -Shia war currently going on in Iraq.This seems to be no longer news although it is next door to Syria.The man who helped bring you the Iraq war Tony Blair now wants us to intervene in Syria.the war between the Sunnis and Shias in the Middle East has been compared to the war between Catholics and Protestants in the 17th century Germany, As it went on for 30 years that became its title.That war was kept going by the intervention of outside powers Spain ,France and Sweden who had their own proteges in the fight.Looks pretty familiar really.

For some time now W Hague has been showing significant amount of enthusiasm for arming the 'moderates' amongst the Syrian 'rebels'.

The 'rebels' seem to be sectarian, theocratic cut-throats of various shades. Words like 'moderate' are being loosely bandied about devoid of any meaning. I am not sure there is anyone who seriosuly claims to know any 'moderates' as we understand it here in this country. Are there? Can they name them? I have not seen any such discussion in the media. What great national purpose is going to be served by arming these cruel rebels? That too has not been explained to the people of the country.

UK 'conservatives' and French 'socialists' clamouring to aid the 'moderate rebels'! The erasing of the (mythical) line dividing centre-right and centre-left is right there.

So why is Hague showing such levels of enthusiasm? I would request Peter to give us his views on that.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.